The tradition of surrealist photography has always aimed to provoke wonder, curiosity and the healthy uneasiness of being in a dream. Today, a surreal photo can cause a dirty accusation: “This is created by AI.”
It’s one of the things that AI has become increasingly good at: turning strange ideas into images that look like real photographs, defying all reason. But the audience is rejecting these as real images. Research from Getty Images‘ The VisualGPS platform shows that while 74 percent of consumers admit that an AI-generated image can be as realistic as a photograph, 78 percent say that, because of its origin, a generated image cannot be considered real.
Crucible predicted this when he started one new campaign of whimsical, surreal visuals—depicting the brand’s iconic ceramic cookware life-size of a boat bobbing along with yachts in a harbor—to debut a new nautical color. That’s why they were quick to credit the human artists behind the work, dispelling any doubt about the AI in the game.
Several other brands have taken a similar tack, even going so far as to call on other brands’ enthusiasm for AI-generated content — like Zevia “Real Soda for Real People” campaign.which aligns real product ingredients with real, human-made imagery, positioning it as a contrast to its AI-happy, over-processed competitors.
Brands may be having fun with AI’s role in the cultural moment, but the implications are serious. As AI models become more powerful, it is becoming more difficult to distinguish between AI-generated visuals and those shot by a human. In response, consumers are actively judging the content based on HOW is done, forcing brands to view every stage of creation as a potential consumer touch point. Demonstrating evidence of human craft and creativity has never been more important in building trust.
AI skepticism is affecting the market
Generative AI has attracted skeptics since it emerged into the public consciousness three years ago, but the last few months have felt like a real swing of the pendulum. Consumers have expressed strong distaste for AI-generated ads for a host of reasons, from environmental concerns to perceived “laziness” on the part of the advertiser.
The shift hit another inflection point in late March, when in the span of one news cycle, a popular AI video generator closedit was an author novel canceled for AI generated writingand obvious AI production deals fell through. The moment served as a brutal reality check for those using generative AI and a powerful validation of concerns about the promise of frictionless, borderless content.
This is not to say that all AI skepticism comes from complete disdain for the technology. People’s thoughts on AI as a whole have shifted positivelydespite the backlash to its use in brand campaigns and entertainment media. The difference comes from how it is used and what consumers expect from the user. While consumers are fine with using AI in their personal lives, they hold brands to a much higher standard. A well-known brand must have the resources and ability to invest in people-led creativity. Relying heavily on AI-generated content is not seen as innovation or efficiency, but as a lack of effort.
The growing backlash to AI-generated content is pushing brands to rethink how they use AI in their advertising workflows. It’s also pushing them to “prove” that their content is authentic; as a result, the search for authenticity has become both a communicative prerogative and an aesthetic endeavour.
What “looks” human? The rise of an anti-AI aesthetic
As image generation models have advanced and ingested more training data, the indicative “look” of a product’s artificial intelligence has become more subtle. However, some hallmarks remain: an excessive quality, a lack of depth, a “wrong” or “uncanny valley” effect that is often difficult to describe but impossible not to feel.
AI image generators trained using content scraped from the web also notoriously reproduce stereotypes. Generative AI works by probability, and without a diverse, intentionally curated dataset influencing the model, the most likely generations don’t match the world as it is, but stereotypes perpetuated online.
None of these qualities reflect what consumers are looking for in brand visuals. Amidst a flood of synthetic content, audiences cling to what’s real—authenticity has moved from a brand aspiration to a new code of honor. But even authenticity is slippery, changing in response to consumer sentiment and trends in self-expression.
To create content that really feels alive and realbrands must challenge consumer expectations for AI-generated content. A new anti-AI aesthetic is on the rise, with brands aiming to distinguish their content as human-made at first glance. In analyzing visual trends in global advertising, my team at Getty Images has noticed an increase in distinct styles and choices that show a stronger human hand.
One is a tactile, handcrafted look and feel with visible imperfections and rich textures. As Vogue reports, a “childish” quality. is emerging as a symbol of authenticity and intentionality, where in the past, these aesthetics were reserved for more playful and experimental brands. In a world where AI is accelerating our already unprecedented access to information, naivety and wonder are less qualities of youth than qualities of humanity, a refreshing break from the ever-burning digital world. Zevia’s new ads are a strong example of this trend in motion: the recurring robot character, who can only drink soda with artificial ingredients without malfunctioning, has a distinctly clumsy, hand-sculpted look.
With her tribute to Cindy Crawford’s 1992 Pepsi commercialZevia tapped into another trend that brands are using to signal authenticity: nostalgia. People miss the things that gave them joy when they were younger, but from an aesthetic point of view, they also miss the sight before AI. However, AI generators that scrape the web are adept at recreating vintage aesthetics; here comes the texture to counter the synthetic softness.
We’ve also noticed that skeptical audiences want to see real evidence of effort and intent. To meet this need, brands like Apple are leaning on behind the scenes content and visuals. More subtly, they are putting a new focus on videography and photography to reinforce the irreplaceable value of human craft.
Patron did this recently in one new campaign with Guillermo del Toro. Tapping Oscar-winning guest directors is not unheard of for major brands, but The Perfect Pour deliberately emphasizes the importance of craft, blending the director’s and brand’s creative signatures to equate craftsmanship with quality. even OpenAI highlighted human craft in a 2025 campaign, using 35mm film for a nostalgic, hand-crafted feel – an ironic choice for an LLM ad, yet one that authentically reflects our deeply personal relationship with technology.
Brands are also resisting the AI look with compositions that evoke randomness and spontaneity in ways that tools trained on existing images cannot. They are looking to pack the lightning bolt of randomness and everyday surprises into visual form to separate themselves from the AI similitude. Merrellthe last one The “Starts Outside” campaign.for example, it leans toward randomness in its visual composition, expanding on the campaign’s theme of the wonders of unpredictability.
By using these techniques in their storytelling, brands are not only developing engaging aesthetics—ones that may ultimately define this moment in advertising—but building credibility through celebrating human craft.
Finding a balance
Although many consumers reject the use of AI-generated visuals in marketing, organizations have already made significant investments in AI for creative workflows. Eighty-three percent of advertising executives say they have Generative AI deployed in the creative process, and 95 percent of traders expect technology to significantly affect their work.
A world that prioritizes human creativity need not eschew AI entirely. Technology can help creators overcome the “blank page” problem that can prevent them from starting or finishing important projects. Even generating results that don’t quite fit their vision can challenge them to think in the right direction.
Disclosure and transparency are critical, both for human and AI outcomes. “Man-made” is a value indicator. “Made by AI” is a handrail and a show of goodwill. With consumers placing such a high value on the process, brands may need to discover where AI is used at each stage of creative development. This has already become a trend among video game developers who face pressure from AI-hating players – one developer went so far as to replace AI-generated assets that were only in play as temporary holders. Other brands should expect similar scrutiny, especially with advertising trends toward full media production as branded entertainment.
It’s not that brands need to embrace a clear anti-AI aesthetic—a lot of it is still in the making, and many brands will continue to be tough on AI, targeting boosters over detractors. Ultimately, what matters most to consumers is that brands are honest and true to themselves, whether AI plays a role in visualizing their identity or not.
